6
… and Their Performance Error in radius of curvature  is propor- tional to error in 1/p , or  p  /p  2. Code: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~schumm/lcdtrk.tar.gz This is very rough; details and updates in a moment!

11
Choice of Tracking Techonolgy (Si, Gas) Tracker needs excellent pattern recognition capa- bilities, to reconstruct particles in dense jets with high efficiency. But as we’ve seen, recent physics studies (low beam-energy spread) also suggest need to push momentum resolution to its limits. Gaseous (TPC) tracking, with its wealth of 3-d hits, should provide spectacular pattern recognition – but what about momentum resolution? Let’s compare. In some cases, conventional wisdom may not be correct…

12
Some “facts” that one might question upon further reflection 1 Gaseous tracking is natural for lower-field, large-radius tracking In fact, both TPC’s and microstrip trackers can be built as large or small as you please. The calorimeter appears to be the cost driver. High-field/Low-field is a trade-off between vertex reconstruction (higher field channels backgrounds and allows you to get closer in) and energy-flow into the calorimeter (limitations in magnet technology restricts volume for higher field). The assignment of gaseous vs solid state tracking to either is arbitrary.

14
For gaseous tracking, you need only about 1% X 0 for those 200 measurements (gas gain!!) For solid-state tracking, you need 8x(0.3mm) = 2.6% X 0 of silicon (signal-to-noise), so 2.5 times the multiple scattering burden. BUT: to get to similar accuracy with gas, would need (7.1/2.5) 2 = 8 times more hits, and so substantially more gas. Might be able to increase density of hits somewhat, but would need a factor of 3 to match solid-state tracking. Solid-state tracking intrinsically more efficient (we’ll confirm this soon), but you can only make layers so thin due to amp noise  material still an issue.

15
3 Calibration is more demanding for solid-state tracking The figure-of-merit  sets the scale for calibration systematics, and is certainly more demanding for Si tracker (2.5 vs. 7.1  m). But,  is also the figure-of-merit for p  resolution. For equal-performing trackers of similar radius, calibration scale is independent of tracking technology. Calibrating a gaseous detector to similar accuracy of a solid-state detector could prove challenging.

18
X s R X X Hybrid Trackers – the Best of Both Worlds? In an ideal world, momenta would be determ- ined from three arbitrarily precise r/  points. Optimally, you would have Si tracking at these points, with “massless” gaseous tracking in- between for robust pattern recognition  Si/TPC/Si/TPC/Si “Club Sandwich”. X R X X GAS Si Current gaseous tracking designs recognize this in part (Si tracking to about R/4).

19
Hybrid Tracker Optimization Let’s try filling the Gaseous Detector volume (R=20cm-170cm) with various things… All gas:No Si tracking (vertexer only) TESLA:Si out to 33cm, then gas Sandwich:Si out to 80cm, and then just inside 170cm Club Sand:Si/TPC/Si/TPC/Si with central Si at 80cm All Si:Eight evenly-spaced Si layers SD:Smaller (R=125cm) Si design with 8 layers

21
And so… Preliminarily, it looks as if high-momentum tracking resolution make be a driving issue. We need to continue to explore and confirm this. Some “obvious” facts about the relative advantages and disadvantages of gaseous/solid-state tracking are not correct. If curvature resolution at high p  is an important issue, then solid-state tracking is the obvious choice. Of course, pattern recognition is an issue for solid- state tracking, but there’s a number of layers for which PR becomes better for solid-state tracking. We need to find that number! (or: hybrid tracking)?